 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Polony v. City of Sterling Heights2/20/2001
stication to weigh the pros and cons of signing the plea agreement. Plaintiff was thirty-five years old at the time of the plea hearing. She had been married for fourteen years, and was the mother of two children. We find no error in the circuit court's assessment that plaintiff had sufficient sophistication to assess the consequences of signing the release.
Plaintiff also claims that, although she was not incarcerated at the time that she signed the release-dismissal agreement, her signing of the agreement was "tantamount to a coercive choice," because of the looming threat of returning to jail. However, at the district court plea hearing on March 14, 1996, plaintiff stated that she understood what was happening, understood that she did not have to plead responsible to anything, that she had a right to proceed to a hearing before a judge, that it was the People's burden to prove her responsible by a preponderance of the evidence, and that she still wanted to indicate she was responsible for careless driving on the date in question. Plaintiff's attorney stated on the record:
MR. SULEK: Yes, your Honor. Miss Poloney has an absolutely spotless record. I know it is very unusual to have this kind of disposition because I know what she was originally charged with.
I would just indicate to the Court that I know Miss Poloney's dad very, very well. She has had probably every medical ailment known to mankind including kidney transplants and just dramatic, dramatic medical problems. And that was -without getting into all the details, that was part of the problem that occurred on this evening.
THE COURT: I remember your comments last time, Mr. Sulek. All right. With regard to this matter, I think counsel's comments are correct, Miss Poloney, that certainly it is a rather unusual circumstance. But I think that your circumstances are somewhat unusual.
Obviously, I'm not happy to hear that you have all these medical problems. I'm sure you are not happy either. You probably with you didn't, but the point is, you know, that whatever happened here, if I remember correctly, there was - you did have a couple of drinks.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And, possibly with all the medical problems, you shouldn't be drinking at all. So, I'm not belaboring that with you and I am not criticizing you, I'm just suggesting that, you know, it's a good disposition. Mr. Sulek worked it out for you; take advantage of it.
I'm going to fine you $150, but that's it. Are you in a position to take care of that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
We conclude that plaintiff presented insufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact on the question whether she was coerced into signing the release agreement. The record of her plea indicates that it was voluntary. There was no overwhelming threat of incarceration where plaintiff had been released from custody and had no prior record. And plaintiff never sought to have the plea set aside on the grounds that it was involuntary. Plaintiff's criminal defense attorney testified that he advised plaintiff that the release was probably not enforceable. However, plaintiff chose to sign the plea agreement, initialing the release provision, and gave no indication to the court, either before or after tendering the plea, that she did not voluntarily accept the terms of the agreement. Thus, applying the six voluntariness factors set forth in Stamps, supra, the circuit court did not err in concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the agreement was voluntary.
III.
Plaintiff also argues that the release was not valid because there was e
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Michigan DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|